Nanuram vs Bheru - 1984 Supreme(MP) 206

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
P. K. Saxena for applicants; S. A. Mev & M.L. Agarwal for non-applicants.

Headnote:(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 -- injunction application -- defendants purchasing divided share of co-bhumiswami -- another co-bhumiswami not entitled to relief of injunction.
        (2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 39, Rr. 1 and 1 -- application of defendant against plaintiff -- not maintainable -- he should file a separate suit.
        (3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 117 -- entries in revenue record -- cannot be brushed aside on conjectures.
        The plaintiff-non-applicants are the sons of deceased Ghasi. Ghasi and defendant No. 1 Mayaram, were real brothers. The defendant No. 2 Amra is the son of Mayaram. Defendant No. 4 Radheshyam purchased the disputed land from defendant No. 1 by a duly registered sale-deed dated 16.5.80 for Rs. 10,000/-. In the suit filed by the plaintiffs they claimed a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit land on the ground that they were in possession of the suit land and the defendants were threatening to dispossess them on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Mayaram in their favour. The defendants resisted the application on the ground that there was a partition between Ghasi and Mayaram in which the disputed land fell to the share of Mayaram and he was in exclusive possession thereof and that after the sale the same is in the possession of the defendants. The defendants also submitted an application for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession of the disputed land. The trial Court dismissed the application made by the plaintiffs and allowed the application submitted by the defendants. The plaintiffs preferred appeal against the order passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court set-aside the order passed by the trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction submitted by the plaintiffs and dismissed the application submitted by the defendants No. 3 & 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate Court the defendants No 3 and 4 have submitted this revision.
        Held : From the material placed on record it appears that Ghasi during his life time filed a suit alleging partition of the disputed land and stating that survey No. 306 measuring 2.461 hectare fell to his share. Mayaram also admitted the partition but disputed the land which fell to the share of Ghasi. In the revenue entries for the years 1979-80 to 1980-81 possession of Mayaram was shown on the disputed land. After the purchase by the defendant No. 4, his possession was shown in the revenue entries. These entries were accepted by the trial Court. The appellate Court without assigning any reason brushed aside the said entries on the ground that it very much doubted the correctness of the entries about possession and that it is quite likely that in collusion with the Patwari, the entries in panchsala khasra have been made. It further observed that the Patwari did the mischief when he made the entry about possession of Mayaram under Bhai-Batwara. In my opinion the appellate Court has misdirected itself in brushing aside the revenue entries on conjecture and surmises which had no basis. Moreover Ghasi and Mayaram admitted that there was a private partition between them and the parties were in exclusive possession of the land which fell to their share. In the circumstances if Mayaram had sold the land which fell to his share to the defendants and the defendants were in possession thereof, there was no occasion to issue a temporary injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs alleged possession. The appellate Court consequently acted illegally in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.
        However, in the circumstances of the case the trial Court was not justified in issuing a temporary injunction against the plaintiffs restraining them from interfering with the possession of the defendants over the disputed land. If the defendants have a grievance that the plaintiffs are threatening to dispossess them otherwise then in due course of law, they are free to file a suit and claim appropriate relief. It is, therefore, not necessary to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court setting aside that part of the order passed by the trial Court by which the plaintiffs have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the defendants of the suit-land. Revision allowed.